Comments

LogHog

Obama is for "Freedom" yes he wants to be Free to do whatever he wishes..he may get his wish sometime during the next 4yrs...if he can only get congress to disappear..he may just get his wish, if only the correct "crisis" will show itself.

GETACLUE

As long as we are talking about the FOUNDING FATHERS, THE CONSTITUTION and RIGHTS. At the time the Constitution was written the ARMS that the framers were refering to was the SINGLE SHOT MUZZEL LOADER. So in effect the 2nd admendment gives you the right to own SINGLE SHOT MUZZEL LOADERS and nothing more.

TrollSlayer

At the time the Constitution was written the only means of written speech was quill pen on parchment. And yet Clueless is still blabbering freely on an internet comment page about “muzzel” loaders. Hey Clueless, shut your "muzzel" and go back to quill pens like the founders intended. LOL

SpankysLastDance

They were talking about single shot muzzle loaders so that is all we have a right to? That's like saying our inalienable rights were given to us by an 18th century God, so today's 21st century God doesn't apply!Freedom of speech back then was accomplished using handset type or handwritten documents, so Obama's free speech delivered by the use of the teleprompter doesn't apply! Freedom to move about was by walking, horseback or buggy, so your car doesn't apply now.Give up that car buddy!

sounder

You people need to find something to do with your free time or get involved with your local communities by being a volunteer. Kind of thick that the defenders of the Constitution, at least those who live in West Virginia who are hoarding constitutional rights, the protection of liberty, this in a state which was created by "executive order" from the counties which left the Commonwealh of Virginia.

Wheeldog

The right to "keep and bear arms" does not include the word,"any". Some states place restrictions on sidearms, short-barreled shotguns, explosive rounds, fully automatic weapons and other types of firearms. These restrictions have withstood the test of Constitutional challenges. If opponents to proposed laws placing restrictions on certain weapons feel they have a strong Constitutional case why not simply wait until such a law is passed and challenge it as being unconstitutional? What's to worry about?

Wheeldog

Again, if the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms then why should proponents of unlimited firearm rights be concerned about whatever gun-related legislation that might pass Congress? Challenge it before the Supreme Court to decide its constitutionality. In fact, the Constitution does not preclude reasonable restrictions being placed on the right to bear arms. Restricting the sale of weapons designed primarily for military purposes, particularly rapid fire assault firearms with large capacity ammo clips, is simply common sense.

TrollSlayer

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he UNLIMITED power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." TENCH COXE, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress, Feb. 20, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hand?" PATRICK HENRY, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788

TrollSlayer

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, COMPOSED OF THE PEOPLE, trained to ARMS is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." JAMES MADISON, 1 Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

And now the opposing viewpoint:

“Restricting the sale of weapons designed primarily for military purposes, particularly rapid fire assault firearms with large capacity ammo clips, is simply common sense.” WHEELDOG, Intelligencer comment page, year 4 AB (after Obama)

Wheeldog

Then test it before the Supreme Court. It is their responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution and determine how it applies to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Isn't that how the system is supposed to work?

TrollSlayer

Wheeldog, I have a better idea. Why don’t you amend the Constitution to specify which arms citizens are allowed to bear? THAT process is written into the Constitution, and is how the system is supposed to work. The Congress is supposed to be writing laws that are constitutional, NOT writing unconstitutional laws that require me to challenge them. And certainly the President is NOT supposed to be legislating by executive orders I have to challenge to keep my Constitutional rights.

The larger point is that the system is broken. All three branches of it. The vast majority of what the Government does now is clearly unconstitutional. Social security? Welfare? Medicare? Education? Energy? Arts? Where are those Federal powers in the Constitution? Yet they survive. Challenges before the Supreme Court do little to nothing to control the budget-busting, freedom-infringing monster our Government has become.

TrollSlayer

Obamacare is clearly, inherently unconstitutional, it’s one of the main reasons we WILL go bankrupt as a nation, but it was challenged and the Supreme Court inexplicably upheld that ridiculous health insurance scam as a tax. And a “conservative” Justice wrote the majority opinion.

When the system is completely broken, the founders gave us the Second Amendment as the people’s ultimate freedom insurance policy. Which is exactly why Obama’s Government is trying to undermine it. Obama’s gun control legislation by executive order is NOT about “the children.” If you think so, you’re not seeing the whole picture.